Hernandez v. San Marino at Soho Incorporated
- Debra Freeman
- 1:19-cv-07976
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hernandez v. San Marino, Judge Nathan ordered settlement papers and explanations before deciding approval in the parties’ Fair Labor Standards Act case.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the FLSA case, their lawyers, and the assigned magistrate judge were affected by the settlement-submission, consent, and scheduling directives.
What happened
In Hernandez v. San Marino at Soho Incorporated, the parties told the court they had reached a settlement in a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal wage law.
The court required the parties to submit the settlement agreement and a joint explanation within 30 days. The submission must explain the settlement’s fairness, how the amounts were calculated, the hours and wages at issue, and any request for attorneys’ fees. The court warned that it would likely not approve confidentiality terms or a general release from all liability.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to having future proceedings handled by a magistrate judge. The court adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines without setting a new date and vacated the jury-trial date; it did not approve the settlement in this order.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. San Marino at Soho Incorporated · No. 1:19-cv-07976
- Debra Freeman
- Feb. 25, 2021
Background
The parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action. Under the court’s reading of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and controlling precedent, the settlement could take effect only after court review to determine whether it was fair.
Settlement submission required
The court ordered the parties, within 30 days, to submit both the settlement agreement and a joint letter explaining why the court should approve it. The submission must include:
- A discussion of the fairness considerations identified in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc.; - The method used to calculate the settlement amounts; - A sufficiently detailed list of the plaintiffs’ hours worked and wages, including both sides’ estimates if they disagree about hours or wages owed; - Detailed billing records supporting any request for attorneys’ fees, including the hours worked and the nature of that work; and - If the proposed agreement contains a non-disparagement provision, legal authority and argument showing why that provision is fair and reasonable.
The court also advised that it would likely not approve a settlement containing a confidentiality provision or a general release from all liability. This order did not approve or reject the settlement.
Consent to magistrate-judge proceedings
To speed the case, the court ordered the parties to meet and discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to having all further proceedings before the assigned magistrate judge. If both parties consented, their lawyers were required to file a completed consent-and-reference form. If the court approved the form, the magistrate judge would conduct the remaining proceedings, and any appeal would go directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
If either party declined consent, the parties were required to file a short letter within one week after submitting the settlement agreement, without identifying which party declined. The court stated that the parties could withhold consent without negative consequences.
Case schedule
The court adjourned all upcoming conferences and deadlines without setting a new date and vacated the jury-trial date. The order was signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.